- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 18 2007,18:04) Here's the thing guys – I believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Literally. Why is that a crime of not believing by faith? It is taught clearly in scripture, too. In fact, it is more likely and taught clearer than both of your views! Jesus had geneology! He had a Mother! And yes, you can give “birth” to plans………….you were born, right, Nick? You started out as a plan, I'm sure.
Hi not3,
Parents do not beget and spend time with and love a plan.
He is the beloved monogenes son.Quote (Not3in1 @ April 18 2007,18:16) Right, WJ. As I do not believe in the incarnation, and you do, we may have more than a bit of misunderstanding between us.
But I believe that Jesus was with God as a son is with his father before they are born. I believe scripture also teaches this. Scripture is vague if it is referring to an incarnation OR even more vague regarding Nick's beliefs to a pre-existent “spiritual person.”Phillipians is really the only passage that helps the incarnation along. I'm not sure which passages Nick uses for his beliefs. But the literal son belief can be found everywhere in the gospels.
You know Not3 there is a lot more evidence for a pre-existent Yeshua in the Bible than you might realise (I hope to start a thread when my commitment with t8 winds up). Even the Greek word for “with” that John chose to use in John 1:1b speaks clearly of His prior existence.The word is “pros” which when used with the accusative, as it is in John 1:1b, properly means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship). Even the unitarian scholar Joseph Thayer affirms this (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.541). The word is generally translated “to” or “toward” (NKJV) or “unto” (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to “something said”, or an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/wisdom/power coming from God. It speaks strongly of a intimate fellowship between two individuals.
Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: eimi) in the preceeding clause of the first verse (John 1:1a) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning. So, taking into account the grammar John used in the opening verse of his prologue it's quite clear that he was writing about a divine (The Logos “was God” – John 1:1c), self-aware personage who existed perpetually in intimate relationship with another (The Father).
The notion that the Logos was a plan of God is also challenged by the forth verse in the prologue:
“In him was life (Gr. Zoe); and the life was the light of men.”
Most scholars surmise that it the Greek word “zoe” here refers to 'eternal' life and in the context of John 1:4 means “eternal life was intrinsically His to give”. Whatever the correct construal, it raises the question of the Unitarian; “how could a adjectival concept, an expression of God, have any kind of “life”?
John 1:1-4 is just one passage that strongly affirms the pre-existence of Yeshua, and the grammar is difficult to dispute, I think. And we should let grammar dictate our doctrine, and not visa verse, right?
Blessings
Pre-existence seems to not only touch on the Christ in the scriptures but the Antichrists also; even down to us
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
And when did I Know and forget that I should be reminded of things I once new Jude?
Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.Dispute over the predestination of Moses; that even he was seen on the MT olives with Christ; Daniel 12 all the graves opened raised some to everlasting life some to shame predestinated to salvation and judgment days?
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
The predestinated alive and well sitting by us in church
Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Twice dead perishing false prophet’s destination the Lake of fire plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:12 ¶ These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;Quote (Not3in1 @ April 18 2007,18:16) Right, WJ. As I do not believe in the incarnation, and you do, we may have more than a bit of misunderstanding between us.
But I believe that Jesus was with God as a son is with his father before they are born. I believe scripture also teaches this. Scripture is vague if it is referring to an incarnation OR even more vague regarding Nick's beliefs to a pre-existent “spiritual person.”Phillipians is really the only passage that helps the incarnation along. I'm not sure which passages Nick uses for his beliefs. But the literal son belief can be found everywhere in the gospels.
Hi not3,
What is not to understand about spiritual beings?
God is a spiritual being and so is His Son and all the sons of God and the angels.Hi not3,
Parents do not beget and spend time with and love a plan.**********************
Nick, remember that your beliefs require you to guess that OT scriptures are pointing to this pre-existent Jesus. For there are no clear teachings that Jesus existed prior to his birth. In fact, the only clear verses point to his beginning at his birth. The other popular verses (such as Phillipians) must have pre-existence read into them starting from that presumption.
Who ever said that God “spent time with” this pre-existent spirit person who was Jesus prior to his birth? Whew, that was a mouth full.
Are their scriptures that clearly teach this? If there are such verse, I would love to review them.Isaiah, I will look forward to this pre-existent thread. It is a topic that has really captured my interest because I believe it has everything to do with how you answer the question: Who do you say that I am?
“how could a adjectival concept, an expression of God, have any kind of “life”?
***************************
Isaiah, the answer is – because he was born. In him was the life and light of men. God granted him life in himself.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 19 2007,16:12) Hi not3,
Parents do not beget and spend time with and love a plan.**********************
Nick, remember that your beliefs require you to guess that OT scriptures are pointing to this pre-existent Jesus. For there are no clear teachings that Jesus existed prior to his birth. In fact, the only clear verses point to his beginning at his birth. The other popular verses (such as Phillipians) must have pre-existence read into them starting from that presumption.
Who ever said that God “spent time with” this pre-existent spirit person who was Jesus prior to his birth? Whew, that was a mouth full.
Are their scriptures that clearly teach this? If there are such verse, I would love to review them.
Hi not3,
You only have to read Jb 38 and Gen 1,2,6 Ps 89, Prov 30, Jb 1,2 to know that God had the company of His sons before and after the creation of earth and man.
The firstborn Son is only firstborn if he was first. And since all creation came through him that does make sense.When Peter was asked by Jesus who he thought he was he was told he was
” the Christ, the Son of the living God”So no mention of Mary or David or his human roots.
John told us the Word became flesh. We know who the Word is who was with God so it speaks of partaking of our human nature as well.
ps “preexistence” is an oxymoron.
A being either exists or does not and having a visible human body is scarcely relevant in the whole picture is it?Quote (Not3in1 @ April 19 2007,16:14) Isaiah, I will look forward to this pre-existent thread. It is a topic that has really captured my interest because I believe it has everything to do with how you answer the question: Who do you say that I am?
not3He sure didnt say “thou art the Christ the Son of man”.
When Peter was asked by Jesus who he thought he was he was told he was
” the Christ, the Son of the living God”So no mention of Mary or David or his human roots.
**********************************************
I disagree, of course,It was custom to only recognize the Father. Jesus recognized Peter's father by first saying, “Simon, son of Jonah….” and then when Peter answered the question, he also acknowledge who Jesus' Father was, “…you are the Son of the living God.” Peter also knew that Jesus was the son of Mary, but it was not appropriate to acknowledge it this way.
He sure didnt say “thou art the Christ the Son of man”.
**************No, he didn't. And I wouldn't answer that question that way either!
Hi not3,
You only have to read Jb 38 and Gen 1,2,6 Ps 89, Prov 30, Jb 1,2 to know that God had the company of His sons before and after the creation of earth and man
*******************************I'm sorry but you have to infer that these OT verse were talking about the pre-existent, spiritual person, of Jesus Christ.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 19 2007,16:45) He sure didnt say “thou art the Christ the Son of man”.
**************No, he didn't. And I wouldn't answer that question that way either!
not3Help us understand what your interpretation is of the “Monogenes Son of God” and the Son of man.
The firstborn Son is only firstborn if he was first. And since all creation came through him that does make sense.
***************************FirstBORN.
Jesus wasn't born until he was born. Otherwise the accounts in Matthew are for what?Jesus was the firstborn of the new creation to come. We will follow him in this new birth. In bringing many brothers to glory……
Help us understand what your interpretation is of the “Monogenes Son of God” and the Son of man.
*******************
Yes.Hi not3,
So do you agree God was not alone?
Do you agree God had sons with him?
The monogenes Son was sent into the world, he proceeded forth and came from God Who is in heaven. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
If you do not agree that is fine.
I would rather you agree Jesus is a man and leave his origins to another time.God said he stretched out the heavens ALONE – with his own hand.
You write:
The monogenes Son was sent into the world, he proceeded forth and came from God Who is in heaven. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
******************************I agree with this. Except you mean by “sent into the world” something that I do not see taught clearly in scripture. I see a conception and birth – clearly.
Hi not3
John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 17:18
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1 John 4:14
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.Thanks, Nick. I believe all of these scriptures too!
We differ on our definitions of “sent,” and “manifested,” and “came from God.”
You see, both of our beliefs can be nicely fit into these verses. You believe God “sent” his Son that pre-existed into the world, and I believe God “sent” his seed into the world that manifested as his Son. Both can be read into these verses quite nicely. And both have been expounded on by various writers. So, at least we both are embracing popluar theologies. While not comforting, it does bring us closer to agreeing to disagree. I am enjoying trying to grasp other belief systems. It is helping me define my own.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 19 2007,17:23) Thanks, Nick. I believe all of these scriptures too! We differ on our definitions of “sent,” and “manifested,” and “came from God.”
You see, both of our beliefs can be nicely fit into these verses. You believe God “sent” his Son that pre-existed into the world, and I believe God “sent” his seed into the world that manifested as his Son. Both can be read into these verses quite nicely. And both have been expounded on by various writers. So, at least we both are embracing popluar theologies. While not comforting, it does bring us closer to agreeing to disagree. I am enjoying trying to grasp other belief systems. It is helping me define my own.
not3John 17:5
Dosnt fit in your belief!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
